Richard Crawley, PAS - What happens in planning authorities?

What happens in planning authorities ?

Richard Crawley

Peer day Feb 2015 www.pas.gov.uk

Overview1. Benchmark roundup

• Inventing the art• Resources• Productivity• Customers• Reflections

2. Planning Quality Framework• Is it any good ?

* One-off presentation alert *

Benchmark roundup

• Benchmarking since 2009– 276 councils participated in total– Confidential, but valuable dataset

• Publish aggregate as a “state of the nation”– Before we forget; for the benefit of the future

• Need to find the right tone– Warts ‘n’ all, but useful to councils– Your view is the one that matters

Inventing the art

• We had to make the basic building blocks– What was the work called ? (‘Q’ codes had not

kept up)– What were our tasks called ? (and which were

‘value’ ?)• There is a value in this framework• We stole from building control

– Productive hourly rate = £50– Compare / contrast with pre-app charges (!)

Resources

• =Primary focus (we were preparing for fees)• Big decisions

– What was supposed to be covered by the fee ?– … and what was RSG ?

• Consequences to these decisions– And not just for planning departments– Vulnerable to workload fluctuations ? Or broader

council spending pressures ?

Subsidy = 30% (then)

Majors = profit. Avoid conditions !

application count cost of processing

per app fee per app at time

of benchmark

Major non residential 2149 £2,841 £6,277 All dwellings 14162 £1,664 £1,293 Minor non residential 20999 £783 £410 Householders 48020 £408 £131 Heritage 11981 £449 £2 All waste 58 £4,155 £5,137 All minerals 144 £622 £1,110 All others 48668 £385 £158 Conditions 12540 £268 £93 All app types 158721 £589 £353

Productivity

• “We are not updating the 150 cases per officer thing”– In the end, we have caved in

• It’s gone down – Awkward. Work types ? Bloat since 2002 ?

Caseload = 144 / case officer

Productivity revisited

• In 2002, it was professional case officer + admin types. Now less differentiation.

• Not cases per DC officer, but cases per human– Derives total head count– = less wiggle room– In the ODPM study, this was “less than 100”

All-in figure is 88 cases per human

All-in figure is 88 cases per human

Drivers of productivity

• Large authorities = higher productivity• Work mix = biggest impact

– Organise against workload of high numbers of simple applications. Fast track. Often urban.

• Plus local factors (eg contamination)

Supergroups = ONS classification

Customers

• Individual councils failed to get enough volume to allow confidence

• In aggregate we had clear messages– Talk to us, generally. It’s just manners. – Talk to us *especially* when there are issues– We (generally) fail on customer care

• These are not high volume environments, but we fail because we don’t acknowledge WIP and target culture

Reflections (on LPAs)

• Massive shift in understanding– Financial literacy

• National indicators hide almost everything about performance

• Planning work needs to be unpicked to be understood

• Subsidy represents a risk to development• Communication is often weak

Reflections (on benchmarking)

• Sustained collaborative effort– Fantastic advert for ‘sector led’ work– Great partnership with CIPFA

• Raw data is great– Allows you to ask questions late

• Benefit beyond “improvement tool”– Demonstrate excellence

• Difficult to count things in policy

Benchmarking is dead. Long live PQF.The basic building blocks have been adapted and recycled into the PQF

1. More focused on customers

2. Internal management tool / external ‘declaration’

3. Not an annual snapshot, but a continuous process

4. We want it to become a “badge”. Over time.

Back office dataEach qtr

Applications

map

Surveys Quality

Mapping1/off

ApplicantEach decision

NeighboursEach decision

Amenity groupsOnce/yr

CouncillorsOnce/yr

StaffOnce/yr

Service HeadOnce/yr

Quarterlysummaries

Annual report

Simple quality measures

Big scheme quality measures

Quarterlysummaries

Quarterlysummary

Customer Surveys• Agents, Applicants, Neighbours, Peers• Staff, councillors, amenities• Tied to an individual application• Help, Time, Information, Straightforward.

Customer Surveys

• “We may be slow, but we offer a quality service”– This allows you to test, prove

• Same questions nation-wide• Early days

survey results Application Ref: HA/FUL/4456/14

Plus head of service survey

• Things are different. Why ?– ICT ?– Organisation ?

• How happy are you ?• What are your plans ?

– Collaborations ? Shared approaches ?

Plus lots of data & pictures

sampled• Everyone has same

application count• Less mental juggling

sampled

Approved ?

Valid ?

No fee ? (exc. heritage & trees)

• "Boxplot vs PDF" by Jhguch at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boxplot_vs_PDF.svg#mediaviewer/File:Boxplot_vs_PDF.svg

• "Boxplot vs PDF" by Jhguch at en.wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.5 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Boxplot_vs_PDF.svg#mediaviewer/File:Boxplot_vs_PDF.svg

Ashford

Hastings. End to end days. 12,000 cases compared using 30 numbers

More to come

• Headcount• Investment

• [need more testing]

Is it getting busier ? [yes]

Dev value in our place = £60m/yr

What does it prove ?• Hastings is …

– Struggling financially. Cannot get close to cost recovery

– Getting busier– Quicker than its peers– [Results of survey tbc]

• They might …– Investigate refusals. Lower edge of group. – Ask bournemouth about refunds / free goes– Have a grown-up think about funding

PAS Planning Quality Framework = consistent, relevant information to benchmark performance' (p12):

Solution in search of a problem ?

• Purpose• Routine• Value

• Or do something else …• Use it or lose it ?